I've got the basics of the AoE simulation worked out, and it's spitting out mostly-reasonable numbers. Now I need some feedback on what people think would be useful.

It's currently spitting out two different calculations based on a model proposed by tlitp. The first set of calculations is the total damage done to N mobs. Note that this isn't the average damage per mob, because you could be wailing away on one thing and just getting incidental damage on everything else from HotR, Holy Wrath, Consecration, and AS bounces. It's juts a sum of every point of outgoing damage you produce, though if you're tab-targetting you could make a reasonable argument for dividing the output by N to get an average damage per mob. Here's an example output:

It's also calculating a "split" output based on Holy Wrath, Consecration, and HotNova. This can be thought of as "guaranteed" damage on every mob, because each of these three abilities hits everything around you. The output is calculated as a per-mob value rather than a sum. It looks something like this:

Don't take these values too seriously yet, there are still some tweaks to be made (proper glyphs in particular, but a few other things too).

I can trivially extend these tables out to 10 or more mobs if I want to, I'm just not sure it's terribly useful to do so.

The real question is, "Do these tables tell you something useful about how to AoE tank?" AoE tanking has a lot of variables involved, so it's impossible to come up with one model that covers every situation. What I'm aiming for is to come up with general trends that we can turn into rules of thumb ("Use GC procs immediately" or "ignore Holy Power unless you can't cast an AoE spell" for example).

I think both of these are interesting metrics, but I want to make sure that there aren't other (possibly more interesting) metrics I should be looking at. In particular, I'd like to hear suggestions; what would you like to see this simulation spit out?

(Aside: It's probably worth noting that given how similar all of the outputs are, AoE tanking is basically going to be a giant clusterfuck. As long as you're casting something every GCD, and as many of those somethings as possible are AoE spells, you'll be within a few percent of whatever result wins. In all likelihood, it'll just be easiest to 9H9 while using AS procs on cooldown and filling any gaps with Cons/HW/J/HoW/ShoR/WoG. I'm sort of hoping that the advice will boil down to "make sure you're casting something every GCD," which would make AoE tanking very malleable so tanks can develop their own style without worrying too much about what's best.)

For me aoe tanking generally has 2 phases, with phase 1 being the more important one.

Phase one is the first 4-5 gcds that let you grab all the mobs you are going to tank and the priority here is not maximizing total damage done over time, but making sure everything will stay in range of our aoe abilities (meaning we want to prioritize maximum instant damage above superior damage over time). What I personaly do is I pop DP for hp stacks, then I AS the most distant mob (or a caster if there is one), pop inquisition (and righteous defence the person who has aggro, commonly the healer) while running in melee range, hotr, hw, cons, hotr, judgement before slipping into phase2.

Phase 2 is about maximizing dmg output over time and taunting the mobs dpsers pull off. In this phase I prioritize as follows : hotr > hw > cons > as > judgement saving holy power for the mobs that I'm losing aggro on (sotr) or inquisition if there are a lot of mobs/everything sticks just fine. The reason why I prioritize hw above consecration is mana efficiency, as I put 1 or 0 points in HG. I also run with AS glyphed for single target, unglyphed would be higher, of course.

To answer your question, the simulation you did kinda covers the second phase (excluding my preference to save sotr for the slipping mob, which i only do in up to 5 mobs really), but doesn't really say much about the first phase.

At 80 lvl I do basically the same thing, but without inquisition, obviously.

theckhd wrote:(Aside: It's probably worth noting that given how similar all of the outputs are, AoE tanking is basically going to be a giant clusterfuck. As long as you're casting something every GCD, and as many of those somethings as possible are AoE spells, you'll be within a few percent of whatever result wins.

My view is that there's two situations for AE tanking. Given there's no significant difference between the rotations you're modelling it's somewhat moot, but when "multi-mob-tanking" you're generally doing one of two things:

(1) Cleave-tanking.You have a large trash pack that needs tanking or a small number of adds + a boss. There's a primary DPS target, you need to hold aggro on secondary targets that are being cleaved by DPS. Some mobs are more dangerous than others and you'll be focus-firing those mobs down. Depending on danger levels, you may be blowing some CDs to avoid a death while the scary mobs get killed. Good historical examples: TBC trash packs from raid content in Tier 5, Black Temple and especially Sunwell.

(2) Pure AoE tanking.There's a boatload of small mobs - at least 6, possible a dozen or more. They're pretty much identical, and hit gently enough that one loose mob isn’t going to kill anyone. The Magelocks are dumping pure AE on your head as hard as they can. Examples include basically all of WotLK raid-trash and hopefully very little of Cataclysm.

From a modelling perspective, I think that doing level 80 mechanics is close to worthless – either people have already worked it out or they’re not raiding. Concentrate on level 85 mechanics. A key criteria that I’m interested in is when we switch from ShoR to Inquisition – but this has more to do with what your DPS are doing and what the pack is like. Cleave tanking you’ll probably ShoR (or WoG). Pure-AE you’d pop Inquisition.

knaughty wrote:From a modelling perspective, I think that doing level 80 mechanics is close to worthless – either people have already worked it out or they’re not raiding. Concentrate on level 85 mechanics.

Well, as far as modeling goes, there's little to no difference. The code I write is basically the same, the only thing that changes at 85 is what damage values go into the matrices. So whatever code I write will be the same either way. I've even included Inquisition rotations (though I didn't post them) in the list of priority queues to sim out - the simulation doesn't know (or care) that we don't get it until 81.

It sounds like I've got both of your situations covered - total damage is a pretty good measure of Cleave tanking, and split (or "guaranteed") damage sort of covers pure AoE. The questions end up being in the details - would it be useful to also consider AS damage for pure AoE (i.e. AS_DAMAGE*3/N as an average estimate), or do we throw out anything that isn't 100% reliable? Similarly, do we care about the breakdown between single-target and AoE in the Cleave tanking model? Should I show that explicitly, or just make general comments about it in the write-up?

If Inquisition is in the model and it’s minimal extra work for 80 vs 85, then I revoke my objection

All the below is “IMnsHO”.

I wouldn’t include AS in the “Pure AoE” tanking model. In the circumstance where you have a dozen mobs to tank, all you care about is the minimum damage you’re doing to each mob, because what matters is the clothies not getting their faces ripped off by peeling half the pack. The fact that 3/10 are glued to you from AS doesn’t help when the other 7 just ran off and ate the magelock who popped his trinkets.

For the “Cleave-tank” model, what matters is the damage to the primary target and the minimum damage to any target, because you’re trying to avoid two things: Losing aggro on the current kill target that the rogues are going bonkers on while also not losing aggro on anything that is collecting cleave/incidental AE (the warrior that just popped whirlwind or the lock tab-spamming SoC on secondary targets in order to smash the primary).

”Total damage done by the tank” is not a compelling metric – we’re tanks, not DPS. Prioritising AS over Consecrate might be more damage, but if it leads to “Mob #5” running off and hitting a DPS or healer, you’re doing it wrong.

knaughty wrote:I wouldn’t include AS in the “Pure AoE” tanking model.... The fact that 3/10 are glued to you from AS doesn’t help when the other 7 just ran off and ate the magelock who popped his trinkets.

Prioritising AS over Consecrate might be more damage, but if it leads to “Mob #5” running off and hitting a DPS or healer, you’re doing it wrong.

I think you make some good points; I mostly agree with you. (Also, many laughs at "Magelocks".) However, Avenger's Shield is a large chunk of damage (threat) that we can put on a portion of the adds -- and with Grand Crusader, will at times get chances to cast relatively quickly in succession. We can't count on that, for obvious reasons, but it's still powerful.

I also think that, if the herd of adds is large enough that we worry about Magelocks pulling aggro on a subset of them, they won't be a gibbing hazard. And, if they are, they might be hitting hard enough that focusing down a few ("cleave" situation) is a better idea anyways. Besides, Magelocks have tools to deal with undesired aggro.

Does anyone see any benefit to modeling different combat lengths? Before they started talking about having Divine Plea generate HP, I found myself wondering how many HP we should save up before hitting inquisition. Now that seems like a mostly moot point to me, but maybe someone can think of an interesting and sufficiently common scenario where knowing combat time may affect the outcome.

Suzytincan wrote:Does anyone see any benefit to modeling different combat lengths? Before they started talking about having Divine Plea generate HP, I found myself wondering how many HP we should save up before hitting inquisition. Now that seems like a mostly moot point to me, but maybe someone can think of an interesting and sufficiently common scenario where knowing combat time may affect the outcome.

The change on DP doesn't really change anything, it's just there so we can start with our hard hitting ability. And like Theck, already pointed on another topic, even with the change of ShoR our priority SHOULD NOT change at all.

Edit: if your point was on when to use INQ or when not, it should not change at all, so you should not use INQ on single target tanking.

Is it safe to assume that, when DP comes back up part way through a long, single-target fight, it's optimal to do ShoR-DP-ShoR? If for some reason we were really concerned about aggro or total dps, that is.

Thelmiance wrote:Is it safe to assume that, when DP comes back up part way through a long, single-target fight, it's optimal to do ShoR-DP-ShoR? If for some reason we were really concerned about aggro or total dps, that is.

I can't see a boss fight it is an issue. But for some adds or so, it is really good for it. You have a great lead on threat on the boss, you need to pick up an add, judge, DP, SHOR, and he is all yours.

Thelmiance wrote:Is it safe to assume that, when DP comes back up part way through a long, single-target fight, it's optimal to do ShoR-DP-ShoR? If for some reason we were really concerned about aggro or total dps, that is.

Maybe if you're struggling with threat or something, but how about using it for more of a survivability cooldown?

Case in point:

You're at 60% health, you have 5 seconds on the zzBigDragonBreath timer that will hit for up to 70k. At that point you can WoG-DP-WoG to better prep for the hit, and you might even have an EG proc to still do so more threat.

As the poster above me said, by the time you're two minutes in, you should have enough of a lead to not need 2 ShoRs in a row.

Certainly, if you're trying to maximize DPS/TPS, go for it, but I think I'll probably be saving mine for an "OH SHIT" moment.

Personally I like to keep the standard structure even when in aoe. I sub CS with hotr, chose AS/HW based on amount of targets, sub judge with cons, use hp on inq/wog ( sotr on the 3 target situation ) . It's just less confusing them some priority or fcfs for 9's, and it keeps your mana on a decent level coz not many judges get subbed.

Maybe it's silly and you guys will figure out something way superior, but for now it's easier and nice on mana.

Suzytincan wrote:Does anyone see any benefit to modeling different combat lengths? Before they started talking about having Divine Plea generate HP, I found myself wondering how many HP we should save up before hitting inquisition. Now that seems like a mostly moot point to me, but maybe someone can think of an interesting and sufficiently common scenario where knowing combat time may affect the outcome.

Fight length mattered a TON for AoE tanking before the DP change. There was a seriously complicated bit of situational thinking related to when to use Inq/Cons/HW that was driven into 3 dimensions of parameter space by "How stupid are your DPS?

With the DivPlea change? Pop DP, Inq, HW, Cons. Interleave HotR.

For single target tanking, pop DP on the pull so you can ShoR as soon as the boss gets to melee range. Deep in the fight, I'd probably go WoG -> DP -> WoG to soak a big hit.

Last edited by knaughty on Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thelmiance wrote:Is it safe to assume that, when DP comes back up part way through a long, single-target fight, it's optimal to do ShoR-DP-ShoR? If for some reason we were really concerned about aggro or total dps, that is.

Yes, it's safe to assume that will be a DPS increase. That said, I would probably keep it handy for an emergency WoG-DP-WoG.

Suzytincan wrote:Does anyone see any benefit to modeling different combat lengths?

Not especially. There are basically two types of fights a tank cares about: Short and Long. Short is stuff that dies in 30 seconds, and for that we don't need to do simulations. Just do what you can to front-load threat as much as possible, and if one or two things peel off of you as they die, it's not a big deal.

Long fights are long enough that you'll get many 9-second rotations in, so a stochastic average like what I've calculated is an excellent model. Note that I'm not including bloodlust or Avenging Wrath in any of these calculations, so you won't see a huge difference between a 3-minute fight and a 5-minute fight.

Toying with the idea of re-enchanting my old tank-DPS weapon (non-heroic Gutbuster, currently enchanted with Berserking) to a threat tank weapon (currently using normal Last Word) - but, potentially, I've got a reasonable chance of getting the Bloodvenom Blade (heroic) in the next couple of weeks, which on *paper* is a better bet.

However, I'm a dwarf. How much should the fact that I have a +3 to expertise when using a mace influence this decision; how improved are the two existing maces I'm using in light of that?

Unfortunately, the best option - going for a heroic Gutbuster - isn't realistic thanks to being needed each week for 25-man content.

Please forgive the executioner enchant. I have too much hit to take accuracy, crit is a decent threat stat, and this is sort of my way of biting my thumb at Blizz for providing us with lackluster tanking enchants. Plus it looks cool.

First wanted to thank Theck for his awesome posts and research.

I had a quick question about the model. My question relates to talents.

Continuing down the line, we have Crusade and SotP clocking in at around 60 DPS per point. A far cry from the Crusade we knew and loved in Wrath, but still one of the more potent choices we have. Crusade fared better in earlier simulations, before it was discovered that it's additive with Wrath of the Lightbringer rather than multiplicative.

I note that you analysis is based on using Heroic Last Word. This is a fast tanking weapon.

I use a slow, DPS weapon (The Bloodvenom Blade).

It is my understanding that part of the reason a slow weapon outperforms a fast weapon is that our seal of truth (censure) scales with weapon damange, not weapon DPS. SotP affects censure damage. Therefore, I would suspect that SotP would result in a great DPS increase using a slow weapon, than a fast one.

While Crusade and SotP are even under this model, is it safe to assume that when a tank is using a slow DPS weapon, SotP would, point for point, outperform Crusade?

The reason I am asking is that I think that the WoG build is amazing, and I would like to pick up another 2 points in PotI. Using a slow DPS weapon my sense is that taking two points out of crusade would be the best way to minimize my threat loss.